Young: Treasurer Oliva is also liable he says it's unfair to blame P5.1M cash advance solely on Marquita

CEBU, Philippines - For Cebu City Vice-Mayor Joy Augustus Young, it is not fair to blame everything on the illegal withdrawal and cash advance of P5.1 million Christmas decoration and streetlights last December only on one person.

The audit team conducted last Tuesday a cash examination against Julieta Marquita, the accountable officer who withdrew the amount before a government bank.

The COA said that Marquita, and not the department heads who failed to submit their liquidation report, is answerable to auditors.

During the cash examination, the auditor demanded that Marquita present her cashbook, cash and cash items. It was found that nine of the 22 department heads failed to submit their liquidation report to the CTO, prompting the auditor to demand for the accountable officer to produce it.

Under a COA circular, the failure by an accountable officer to produce the liquidation reports shall be prima facie evidence of misappropriation. Also the COA circular states that the accountable officer would be held criminally liable if he fails to settle the accounts.

But for Young, he said that Marquita’s superior, City Treasurer Ofelia Oliva must also be held liable.

“I don’t think it’s fair for her. I think City treasurer Ofelia Oliva should also be responsible for it,” Young said, adding that Marquita is under the instruction of her superior and this connotes command responsibility.

While the City Council members distance themselves from the COA probe, Young said he feels sorry for Marquita who was made to own all the responsibility on the transaction.

“She was ordered and she was just doing her job. That is why I said, it’s not fair,” Young added.

When Marquita received the amount, she immediately disbursed it to the department heads for them to purchase Christmas lights.

But COA said the transfer of cash advance from Marquita to the different heads of office is already a violation of Section 75 of Presidential Decree 1445, which states that “transfer of government funds from one officer to another shall, except as allowed by law or regulation, be made only upon prior direction or authorization, of the Commission or its representative.”

The COA already questioned the procedure in the cash advance and withdrawal of the money. The government auditors said that cash advances are subject to pre-audit except those for payroll, intelligence funds, petty cash funds and those given for local travel expenses of officers and employees.

The COA said that the use of cash advance is an exception and only on specified instances such as cash advance for payroll and travel. The procurement of goods and services through cash advance is not allowed. (FREEMAN)